ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [ispcp] ISPCP Comments on the ICANN Strategic Plan

  • To: "'Mark McFadden'" <mcfadden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: RE: [ispcp] ISPCP Comments on the ICANN Strategic Plan
  • From: "Mansourkia, Magnolia" <Maggie.Mansourkia@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:25:09 +0000
  • Cc: ispcp-activities@xxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hi guys. How are the meetings going? I think what you've come up with below
is great and have nothing further to add.  Also, I'm curious-any further
discussions from registries re the alleged filtering of newer TLDs?

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mark McFadden
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 11:39 AM
To: ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: ispcp-activities@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ispcp] ISPCP Comments on the ICANN Strategic Plan

The ISPCP would like to make the following remarks in support of the
strategic plan and raise a few issues.  Whilst the strategic plan is seen as
a welcome step forward, we have concerns that the proposals still lack
measurable objectives and detailed timelines. 

	The Strategic Plan is unclear as to whether the relationship between
ICANN and the Root Server Operators will be formalized to the extent of a
contractual relationship.  The ISPCP supports the formalization of
relationships with the Root Server Operators.  The precise nature of that
relationship is a matter that we reserve comment upon.  Whatever that
relationship ends up being, those providing Root Server functionality must
be accountable to ICANN.
	We support the five key suggestions for IANA including: improving
IANA request tracking and responsiveness; providing more reliable operating
capacity; doing better reporting from IANA on operations issues; making root
zone management professional; and, making root servers themselves more
robust.  We especially support the move towed project management orientation
for request tracking and crucial IANA transactions. 
	We believe that the reference made to the ASO Community “building
global consensus policy governing IP addresses” is not supported by the
demise of an independent ASO and the assertion of global address policy
development by the RIR CEOs through the NRO.
	The ISPCP welcomes the appointment of the ombudsman and the role in
helping to educate consumers – a task, which in the past, has often been
left to ISPs.
	We are also glad to see more emphasis placed on compliance so that
policy work developed within the gNSO becomes more meaningful.
	It is essential that all ICANN activities result from a bottom-up
process and the PDP process needs to be flexible and tailored to meet the
demands of individual policy opportunities.
	We seek more information with regard to the proposed regional
meetings: whether they will be focused on outreach and education activities,
or part of the formal policy development process.  If the latter, then the
ISPCP questions how this will be integrated into the discussions necessary
at full, global ICANN meetings.
	Whilst we have commented on some of the issues raised by the ISPCP
consideration of the strategic plan it is apparent that far more discussion
and consultation is required.  Therefore, the ISPCP requests that the ICANN
Board of Directors acknowledge this requirement and seek to address it in a
manner that meets with the full acceptance of the ICANN community.
	The ISPCP also notes with dismay that the Supporting Organizations
were not consulted prior to the public dissemination of the document.  While
the intent may be to craft a plan for operation and management of ICANN, it
is clear that the plan has far-reaching consequences for ICANN’s delivery of
services and thus, its policy.  This process needs to change so that
Supporting Organizations have a meaningful way to have input at an earlier
stage in the plan development.

Mark McFadden
ISPCP Constituency, ICANN

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>